Internet Voting & Votecoin: A Hash Based Voting Technology https://votecoin.wordpress.com
Internet voting is the only way to return American to a great nation. VoteCoin is an internet voting token concept, in a line of 20 years of voting technologies. Thu, 08 Mar 2018 05:11:33 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngInternet Voting & Votecoin: A Hash Based Voting Technology https://votecoin.wordpress.com
Election Systems To Be Treated As Critical Infrastructure During A Cyber Attack – Episode 1040bhttps://votecoin.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/election-systems-to-be-treated-as-critical-infrastructure-during-a-cyber-attack-episode-1040b/
https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/election-systems-to-be-treated-as-critical-infrastructure-during-a-cyber-attack-episode-1040b/#respondFri, 05 Aug 2016 18:12:57 +0000http://votecoin.wordpress.com/?p=141Continue reading Election Systems To Be Treated As Critical Infrastructure During A Cyber Attack – Episode 1040b]]>We found this on REDDIT and it may be a good watch for when they talk about the voting infrastructure. Please send me any links and we will post it here.

]]>https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/election-systems-to-be-treated-as-critical-infrastructure-during-a-cyber-attack-episode-1040b/feed/0foodtruthnowVoting is a form of Insanity – Nobody for President 2016https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/voting-is-a-form-of-insanity-nobody-for-president-2016/
https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/voting-is-a-form-of-insanity-nobody-for-president-2016/#respondSun, 31 Jul 2016 21:45:13 +0000http://votecoin.wordpress.com/?p=137Continue reading Voting is a form of Insanity – Nobody for President 2016]]>We have been saying this for years. The vote is rigged. Voting for the devil you know or the best of the worst, is not an acceptable way to run a corporation. I mean COUNTRY.

Internet voting is SAFE: If the internet voting technology is executed properly, it’s improbable that it will be hacked, especially if the U.S. handles it like online banking but double the login procedures, and if the login portal requires ALL users to do this: 1. Use SHA-256 encryption hashing, and the user submits a test vote, and then have to verify that test vote using all the same credentials.
2. Use 2-3 step verification every step of the way. Such as google’s 2 step (https://www.google.com/landing/2step/).
3. Vote within a safe portal, that auto times out after 3 minutes, so no one’s vote can be stolen. 4. At login require 4-5 security questions to login. Questions must be changed semi-annually. 5. Use a blockchain-like ID verification system where each user gets to “spend” their vote once, each election, after going through a very safe ID verification process.
6. Down stream: Allow the voters to redact their vote if they are being held by a captor, or bribed, or abused in domestic violence at home.

Internet voting in 2016 will be the only way to keep the war mongers, reality stars, and self-elected shillionaires out of the white house. The U.S. needs to run a parallel internet vote to ensure the leader ship of the country is not stolen again.

Various U.S. Leaders and officials are traitors, and should be tried as so. U.S. citizens need to regroup and realize their own overloads, tax collectors, and county “officials” are the actual terrorists. Unfortunately, due to the heavy TV/statist school programming, citizens have come to recognize terrorists come from the far region of the Middle East. Most citizens can’t even tell you geographically where or why we a pumping billions into Israel and these regions… citizens acquiesce and watch the tax dollars disappears in the form of hummer exhaust. Maybe once the shit lords who are dumping the chemicals concede to themselves, in their own heart and soul, that they are the true terrorists, these perpetrators will have a moment of self realization and begin to change, or they may be too far down the path and never repent. I believe that anyone is capable of turning their life around to do good… and it’s never too late to change the path you are on. One can change their ways. Some of the criminals and cohorts behind the poisoning of the masses, it may be better for the U.S. if they take their own lives, and deal with it this way. Maybe if these so-called officials realize many citizens view them worse than they view 3rd world radicalized Syrian civilian militants – and they realize how many “officials” are terrorists, the dialogue will change. It should be a law the U.S. “journalists” refer to these U.S. employed perpetrators as terrorists, to emphasize the gravity of this matter.

“The voter receipt that the Comelec is to issue on Election Day will be incomplete. It will contain only the names of candidates that the voter is to mark on the ballot. Absent will be other crucial data: the location (province, city, municipality, district) and number of the precinct; the PCOS number; and the ballot number, time and date.

Thus the purpose of the receipt – as voter-verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) – would be defeated. It would not serve to foil election fraud. On the contrary, it would fool voters that the balloting is clean.

Such slip of paper would be as worthless as fake receipts that cheating sellers give out. Official Receipts must contain not only the name of the buyer, the item purchased, and the amount. It must detail the seller’s name, address, TIN (tax identification number); BIR approval; and date (if possible also time and place) of transaction. An incomplete receipt cannot serve the buyer as proof of purchase, or tax deduction. Even the cheating seller later can deny issuing such false O.R. That’s why such fake is prohibited. Yet it proliferates, due to spotty law enforcement.

If incomplete, the VVPAT too is illegal and contrary to enforcement order of the Supreme Court. The Election Automation Act of 2008 requires the VVPAT as one of five basic security safeguards of the vote counting machine (VCM). The VVPAT serves two roles: First, on the spot, it is the voter’s countercheck if his assigned VCM reads his ballot right. Second, as paper audit trail, it is the electorate’s countercheck if all the 97,500 VCMs counted and transmitted the votes right.”

“A Coral Springs database analyst brought the issue to Bucher’s attention, and he says he has uncovered dozens of other instances across Florida of people voting twice.

“We talk a lot about voter fraud,” said Andrew Ladanowski, a data analyst and information technology consultant at AddinSolutions. “Everyone accuses everyone of it, but no one has investigated cross-state voter fraud.”

Broward County Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes said Wednesday her office also is looking into information Ladanowski provided that up to 18 people voted twice there.

Election supervisors in Florida don’t have access to a national database to check other states’ voting records, making it difficult to detect people who vote twice, said Brian Corley, president of the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections and Supervisor of Elections in Pasco County.

The supervisors of elections in Broward and Palm Beach counties on Wednesday said they were looking into reports of voters casting ballots twice in the 2014 general election.

He said he doesn’t think the number of people who vote twice is large enough to sway the upcoming presidential election in Florida, but it is an issue. In the controversial 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush won Florida by only 537 votes.

“I don’t think it is rampant, but I would submit one is too many,” Corley said. “We should all agree only eligible voters should be casting ballots.”

In Florida, voting twice in a federal election is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.”

]]>https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/internet-voting-now-new-reports-of-voter-fraud-in-florida-this-week-not-again/feed/0foodtruthnowOne person, two votes?191 Million US Voter Registration Records Leaked In Mystery Databasehttps://votecoin.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/191-million-us-voter-registration-records-leaked-in-mystery-database/
https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/191-million-us-voter-registration-records-leaked-in-mystery-database/#respondTue, 29 Dec 2015 19:11:46 +0000http://votecoin.wordpress.com/?p=90Continue reading 191 Million US Voter Registration Records Leaked In Mystery Database]]>We found it interesting that a lot of the opponents of internet voting hinge their main argument around the fact that voting from home “compromises people’s privacy”.

We have bigger issues right now. Buildings turning to dust. Gov employees using secret servers. Reality stars running as leaders.

A few outliers who may have issues voting from their homes because their spouse are codependent, should not stop internet voting. This is a conceptual argument that shouldn’t stop the USA form being great again.

This week, a hacker leaks 191,000,000 people’s voting information. At this point the USA is going to get screwed with vote schemers and fraudsters, so the USA needs to put on their big boy pants and start using a modern, ethical voting system that doesn’t allow war mongers, schemers, and war criminals, to steal the election every few years. Internet voting now.

]]>https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/191-million-us-voter-registration-records-leaked-in-mystery-database/feed/0foodtruthnowPentagon unit still hides Internet voting test results, 3 years later…https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/pentagon-unit-still-hides-internet-voting-test-results-3-years-later/
https://votecoin.wordpress.com/2015/12/15/pentagon-unit-still-hides-internet-voting-test-results-3-years-later/#respondTue, 15 Dec 2015 20:36:08 +0000http://votecoin.wordpress.com/?p=78Continue reading Pentagon unit still hides Internet voting test results, 3 years later…]]>If you need any more proof that the US government is not supportive of internet voting, or using an auditable voting system, read this article.

“A nonprofit watchdog group is suing an obscure Defense Department unit over its failure for three years to disclose the results of testing on the security safeguards of Internet voting systems that are increasingly being used to cast absentee ballots.

The Pentagon unit, the Federal Voting Assistance Program, has effectively bankrolled many states’ shift to online voting, disbursing tens of millions of dollars in grants for the purchase of equipment that includes Internet balloting options.

Its actions have drawn consternation from cyber experts, who have warned for years that Internet voting is an easy target for hackers who could tamper with or even fix election results. The government’s premier technology testing agency also has refused to endorse these systems.

Now, on the eve of another federal election in which at least 31 states plan to use some form of online voting, the Electronic Privacy Information Center is pressing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding disclosure of the test results so it can disseminate the information nationwide.

In a statement to McClatchy, the Federal Voting Assistance Program said it expects to release the results in 2015. Because they “contribute to the larger, ongoing decision-making process” regarding the agency’s congressional mandate to conduct a demonstration project on electronic voting, it said, the test results are deemed “pre-decisional” and currently are exempt from disclosure.

The case, filed on Sept. 11 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, marks the latest skirmish in a long-simmering clash over the role of the Pentagon unit, whose primary task is to facilitate absentee voting by troops and other Americans living overseas.

The Pentagon unit said it conducted the tests for use by a separate agency, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which is attempting to set standards for Internet voting systems. But a shortage of appointed commissioners has stalled that agency’s progress, and so the Pentagon agency said it is preparing to release the test results on its own.

The agency has walked a fine line since Congress declined in a 2005 law to endorse electronic voting systems until it receives assurance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology that they are secure and reliable.

“The transparent and decentralized nature of the blockchain network enables the development of a non-refutable, and unbreakable record of data, which can be applied to a diverse range of verification and authentication solutions.

Throughout the year established financial institutions, banks, governments, law enforcement agencies and leading educational organizations have disbursed millions of dollars researching these applications.

Some of these funds have gone toward a number of blockchain startups, geared toward the development of smart contract based identification, authentication and record validation platforms. Startups including Bitproof and Ascribe are leveraging blockchain technology to develop decentralized, automated, and unbreakable record keeping systems, enabling individuals to embed ownership claims and intellectual property rights into blockchain-based smart contracts.”

West Virginia University’s (WVU) Student Government Association (SGA) is debating whether to use a blockchain-based voting platform for its upcoming elections, according to the college’s student-run newspaper, The Daily Athenauem.

The initiative, proposed by WVU students Ankur Kumar and Ricky Kirkendall, would allow students to use iPad apps to vote for Student Body President and Vice President, as opposed to traditional voting machines.

If implemented, the students argue, the plan would save the SGA anywhere from $5,000–$7,000, the difference between renting voting machines or purchasing iPads that can run the blockchain-enabled voting apps.

The SGA’s elections chair, Emma Harrison, was optimistic about the plan, but said she believes that the technology would need to be tested more widely before it is implemented.

“I don’t see it working for this SGA election since it’s so soon, but if it were approved it would probably go into place for the next Homecoming election.”

Objections raised

Not everyone at the college is onboard with testing a new and emerging technology for the election, however.

One issue taken up by a campus advisor is the fact that Kumar and Kendall have created the app they want to implement, called SureVoting.

“I love the idea, I love the premise. But I find something a little unethical about someone who is going to vote in the election being responsible for the coding of the results of the election,” SGA advisor Daniel Brewster told the newspaper.

Elsewhere, Kumar made the case for the plan by emphasizing the benefits of the blockchain’s immutable digital ledger.

“Votes that are entered in the blockchain can never be altered or deleted by us – the coders – or by a University administrator or by a student,” Kumar said.

Representatives from the WVU SGA did not respond to requests for further comment as of press time.”

Except, perhaps, when it comes to the machines they use to record their votes.

According to the Wichita Eagle, Wichita State mathematician Beth Clarkson has found irregularities in election returns from Sedgwick County, along with other counties throughout the United States, but has faced stiff opposition from the state in trying to confirm whether the irregularities are fraud or other, less-nefarious anomalies.

Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.

Clarkson’s interest in election returns was piqued by a 2012 paper released by analysts Francois Choquette and James Johnson showing the same pattern of election returns, which favor establishment Republican candidates in primaries and general elections. The irregularities are isolated to precincts that use “Central Tabulator” voting machines — machines that have previously been shown to be vulnerable to hacking. The effects are significant and widespread: According to their analysis, Mitt Romney could have received over a million extra votes in the 2012 Republican primary, mostly coming at the expense of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. President Obama also ceded significant votes to John McCain due to this irregularity, as well.

While Clarkson has found the same statistical irregularity in a number of localities, her efforts to confirm whether they amount to fraud have been centered on Sedgwick County, Kansas, due to the locality’s use of Real Time Voting Machine Paper Tapes, which provide a paper trail that other localities don’t have. However, her efforts to verify Sedgwick County’s election returns have been repeatedly shut down.

She first requested a recount of the 2013 election, but the timeframe in which a recount could have been requested had passed. She then requested the machines’ computer records from the Sedgwick County registrar, which told her to kindly shove off and sue Secretary of State Kris Kobach if she wanted the records so badly.

When Clarkson initially filed her lawsuit requesting the paper records from the voting machines, her suit was denied because a judge ruled that the paper records constituted ballots, shielding them from the state’s open records law. This ruling is suspect at best, given that the paper records do not have voters’ names assigned to them; they only record when and how a ballot was cast for recount purposes.

According to the Wichita Eagle, Wichita State mathematician Beth Clarkson has found irregularities in election returns from Sedgwick County, along with other counties throughout the United States, but has faced stiff opposition from the state in trying to confirm whether the irregularities are fraud or other, less-nefarious anomalies.

Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.”